Is Lady Gaga the next Nirvana/Beatles/Zeppelin?

she's terrible. i foresee her being gone in a year or 2 tops.

she's terrible. i foresee her being gone in a year or 2 tops.

z4twenny

She's the next Manson/gwar/kiss

jrhawk42

I think I threw up a little in my mouth when reading the topic title. Nirvana shouldn't even be mentioned in the same room as The Beatles or Zeppelin, let alone Gaga or whatever the hell her name is.

[QUOTE="DaBlastaMasta"]

[QUOTE="Fuhgeddabouditt"] Idk, from what I remember from the album, most songs were sex and clubbing. I only listened to the album once though. Only like 3 songs from it, the rest werent worth a purchase. Fuhgeddabouditt

Which songs were your favorites? For example, Speechless is about her father's health problems, Telephone is about never being able to enjoy life because of suffocation from your work, and Teeth is about lying and hiding the truth. The meanings are well hidden sometimes.

Yeah most of her songs do have very sexual lyrics ,but a lot of the time they are metaphorical. That way she can not only appeal to those who only want the sexual lyrics, but also to those who hear more.

(Sorry for the late response...)

Naw, not really. But the new Madonna or Cher would be more likely, with all the weird videos and far-out dresses. Also, lately her music has been getting gradually better... Can't stand the 'Poker Face', 'LoveGame' or 'Just Dance' sh*t... Horrible music... 'Bad Romance', not that bad...

Good heavens, no.megagene

No way in hell.

No. She's interesting, but musically she's not in their ballpark IMO.btaylor2404

Re-writing the rules on what's mainstream and what isn't isn't something a band can do alone. That effect was 10% Nirvana, 90% Labels who pushed that sound into high rotation on every station possible, getting as much buzz about Nirvana as possible, getting them all over magazines and MTV... If it wasn't Nirvana it was going to be something else. Some labels were tired of the high costs their hair-metal employees were racking up, and wanted a clean slate to start fresh with. Why not a cheap gritty band from Seattle who had made inroads in college radio, and who were easy to relate to because they weren't these rich sexed up guitar gods with women hanging all over them. They were actual people, and while people enjoyed hair metal, you couldn't be like them musically very easily, and you sure as hell couldn't look like them. That was the key part.Lockedge

Well yeah of course the record companies helped out, the same can be said of any band that achieves any sort of main stream success.

True. Although they're both very different songwriters. I prefer Paul's stuff to Lennon's, on average. I find that while I'm not a big fan of The Beatles, Paul's songs are still nice to listen to while the ones mainly crafted by Lennon are really dated because while he was experimenting at the time...and that's a good thing, and I commend him for it...it really isn't anything all that special, to my ears. There's the odd song, like "In My Life" but for the most part John's work was always lacking. Heartfelt? yeah, but musically uninteresting and often lacking the production to really emphasize how much effort he put into the song. In the end, they're both songwriters who bounced off each other and filled each others weaknesses, but Paul was IMHO the one behind the musical progress, and the production rivalry with Brian Wilson. Lennon was a better writer by a longshot, but in terms of the music at hand, I look to their careers after The Beatles and find Lennon with 3 good songs, McCartney with a handful or two of good songs....and george harrison with great solo work, because he's just rad like that. But that's just my take on them. So long as we all forget about Ringo........worst songwriter ever. Lockedge

It really depends on what you're looking for I guess. True Lennon's songs are more slow burn, less immediately grabbing then most of Paul's. One of the reasons was because Lennon was more interested in just expressing an idea than creating a top ten single (let's face it, Paul was the business man of The Beatles).

It really depends on what you're looking for I guess. True Lennon's songs are more slow burn, less immediately grabbing then most of Paul's. One of the reasons was because Lennon was more interested in just expressing an idea than creating a top ten single (let's face it, Paul was the business man of The Beatles).

TyrantDragon55

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

It really depends on what you're looking for I guess. True Lennon's songs are more slow burn, less immediately grabbing then most of Paul's. One of the reasons was because Lennon was more interested in just expressing an idea than creating a top ten single (let's face it, Paul was the business man of The Beatles).

LJS9502_basic

I personally feel that Lady Gaga is the next Cure, but better.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

It really depends on what you're looking for I guess. True Lennon's songs are more slow burn, less immediately grabbing then most of Paul's. One of the reasons was because Lennon was more interested in just expressing an idea than creating a top ten single (let's face it, Paul was the business man of The Beatles).

Elephant_Couple

I personally feel that Lady Gaga is the next Cure, but better.

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

It really depends on what you're looking for I guess. True Lennon's songs are more slow burn, less immediately grabbing then most of Paul's. One of the reasons was because Lennon was more interested in just expressing an idea than creating a top ten single (let's face it, Paul was the business man of The Beatles).

LJS9502_basic

I'm talking more about Lennon after the Beatles, one of the reasons the Beatles broke up was because he was beginning to hate everything they had achieved.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

It really depends on what you're looking for I guess. True Lennon's songs are more slow burn, less immediately grabbing then most of Paul's. One of the reasons was because Lennon was more interested in just expressing an idea than creating a top ten single (let's face it, Paul was the business man of The Beatles).

TyrantDragon55

I'm talking more about Lennon after the Beatles, one of the reasons the Beatles broke up was because he was beginning to hate everything they had achieved.

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] [QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

It really depends on what you're looking for I guess. True Lennon's songs are more slow burn, less immediately grabbing then most of Paul's. One of the reasons was because Lennon was more interested in just expressing an idea than creating a top ten single (let's face it, Paul was the business man of The Beatles).

LJS9502_basic

I'm talking more about Lennon after the Beatles, one of the reasons the Beatles broke up was because he was beginning to hate everything they had achieved.

< I don't think he hated what they had achieved, he was just tired in being in the band, he probably felt like he was being held back, you can tell Lennon thought that everything would be easier by having a solo career.

JonnyEagle

[QUOTE="JonnyEagle"]< I don't think he hated what they had achieved, he was just tired in being in the band, he probably felt like he was being held back, you can tell Lennon thought that everything would be easier by having a solo career.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="JonnyEagle"]< I don't think he hated what they had achieved, he was just tired in being in the band, he probably felt like he was being held back, you can tell Lennon thought that everything would be easier by having a solo career.

JonnyEagle

[QUOTE="JonnyEagle"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I did not say he hated being in the band. However, egos did clash after a time and Lennon did believe he brought more to the table. Plus, he was forcing Yoko on the rest of the band and they resented it.

LJS9502_basic

Well yeah of course the record companies helped out, the same can be said of any band that achieves any sort of main stream success.

TyrantDragon55

It really depends on what you're looking for I guess. True Lennon's songs are more slow burn, less immediately grabbing then most of Paul's. One of the reasons was because Lennon was more interested in just expressing an idea than creating a top ten single (let's face it, Paul was the business man of The Beatles).

TyrantDragon55

True, mcCartney was the businessman, but he was also the creative force musically and in production. I acknowledge Lennon's pursuit in his songwriting, but he was never that great at making his written work and what was in his head into something fully fleshed out. This is evident in his solo work which is a mangled mess and outright mediocre with the exception of three or so songs where everything aligned correctly. Again, he was a good writer, and he had good ideas, but he had a lot of holes in his songwriting process that the other bandmates filled, and when he went solo, he was exposed. Which is fine and all, he's still a good musician and songwriter, but by himself, he was nothing special and it kind of annoys me when people obsess over Lennon as if he was some songwriting god(having the martyr status likely keeps if all inflated, likely) when he's not anywhere near the highest echelon of songwriters(in my opinion of course, although I will say in terms of being a very public and popular figure, he's up there in terms of top incredibly popular songwriters). The Beatles as a single entity? Sure, they're rather close. When separated, though, none of them were all that great. Cue the statement "greater than the sum of its parts".

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

Well yeah of course the record companies helped out, the same can be said of any band that achieves any sort of main stream success.

Lockedge

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Lennon wanted the fame that mainstream brought as well....

LJS9502_basic

I personally feel that Lady Gaga is the next Cure, but better.

I despise both actually, hence why I mock Lady Gaga by suggesting she might actually be the 'next' anything, while simultaneously insulting The Cure by comparing them to Lady Gaga.